Obama Ensures His Status as War President

Ending the US occupation of Iraq in 2011, President Obama tried to portray himself as a peacemaker. He’s still trying to sell that narrative, even as he quickly escalates in his new Iraq war.

The State of the Union address nominally continued that story, but between talking up further escalation of the ISIS war, and commanders suggesting they could extend the Afghan occupation even further, President Obama’s status as a war-time president from start to finish seems secured.

Much of his commentary in the Tuesday speech was contradictory to his policies, as he insisted he “needed the authority” to fight a war with ISIS months after unilaterally launching that war, and insisting at the time he didn’t need permission to do so.

Similarly, he bragged about making unseen reforms to the use of drones for overseas assassinations, even though he was the one who dramatically escalated this policy in the first place, and has long defended his authority to assassinate anyone he wants to on national security grounds.

Attempts to sell his policy at any given time as something short of a more hawkish alternative have defined his presidency on a narrative basis. Ultimately, this fear of being defined by his wars never seems to get in the way of starting or escalating those wars.

Other than an early move toward rapprochement with Cuba, Obama-era foreign policy seems to be defined by wars and acrimony, seeking military buildups in Asia and Eastern Europe while ensuring that the extent wars are going to last for many, many years to come.

Author: Jason Ditz

7 thoughts on “Obama Ensures His Status as War President”

Voting majority — Does it use poverty to enslave the lower half of society?

Why is it that the winning politician in each and every election held in Empire USA, has been the candidate that mainstream portrays as the one most intelligent? Confident and intelligent Obama-Biden the winner, klutzy and dumb McCain-Pauline go down to defeat and disgrace, enough said.

And as the uneducated laboring-class is the impoverished lower half of society, as they are not so stupid as to waste time voting for their next set of dictators, as this means that Obama win not by 52% of all the voters but by only 26% of those eligible to vote, as Obama was voted into office by the rich ruling class (the 26% most wealthy), does this not mean that we the other 74% who allow such stupidity to continue — that we have to be the most stupid voters the world has ever known?

An exception to Obama's war policies remains the still ongoing talks with Iran. Just as I thought, the neo-con controlled GOP couldn't wait to erect new sanctions on Iran in their quest to blow up the peace talks. Obama has vowed to veto any new sanctions. As icing on the cake, they have bypassed the president and invited Netanyahu to address congress in violation of normal diplomatic protocol. With his election upcoming, undoubtedly this is an attempt to secure his reelection. In comparison to these mad dogs, Obama remains our only (very slim) hope.

And the next President will be a "wartime" President too. Why? Not because of major threats to der AmeriKan Homeland, but because saying we're in a war gives the Executive Branch more unitary powers that can be used as the office sees fit.
This President can also be called the place-holder President, since he is setting things up for the more overt warmonger and international bully that is sure to follow him.

Antiwar people often elect people that say they're antiwar and turn out to be prowar. Prowar people never elect people that say they're prowar but turn out to be antiwar. Obama did not mean what he said before he was elected. He never prosecuted "W" because he is very much like him in foreign policy and can't stand up to any prowar politician of any party.